AMA rules-what are we doing?
Del Rykert
drykert at rochester.rr.com
Sun Nov 17 18:03:19 AKST 2002
Is this a time when we should take a serious look at the results of Bob P's survey? If we consider those results as possible fact and realize we have a perception problem then shouldn't we address the perception issues, whether real or not.
Del K. Rykert
AMA - 8928
NSRCA - 473
Kb2joi - General
----- Original Message -----
From: Buddy Brammer
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: AMA rules-what are we doing?
Ron
Very Good . I flew back in the 60's and early 70's when it was class 1-2 &3 and when pattern changed in the early seventies I quit, mostly because of money and time commitments required to raise and support my family. I missed all the changes that had taken place since then until I got back in pattern in 1995.You are correct it seems that present rule changes are dwarfed compared to those that took place in the past that were the preception or reason many dropped out. this is all the more reason for us to make the effort to try to achieve a majority of the membership concensus on such items. I think it's worth the effort
Buddy
>From: ronlock
>Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org
>To: discussion at nsrca.org
>Subject: Re: AMA rules-what are we doing?
>Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 11:17:25 -0500
>
>History, you want that dusty stuff? Well, it's a rainy day here, so....
>
>Back in the dark ages, AMA pattern judged center maneuvers only.
>There was no box. Turnarounds were not judged. Speed was a good
>thing - Typical turnaround was a spit S to gain speed, let the piped
>.60 unload to 13,000 to arrive at center around 120mph plus.
>
>In the late 1980's, it was seen that "Turnaround" was coming! It was
>time to get America on board with the rest of the world. It was time to
>deal with the bad reputation pattern was getting at some fields
>concerning speed, noise, and the large amount of airspace used.
>A revolutionary concept for most - a "Box" and a noise rule. The engine
>rule "max .61 displacement" got an addition, "or a 1.20 displacement
>4 stroke" in an effort to encourage use of quiet 4 strokes. All that
>"revolution" in rules makes the stuff we talk about now seem like
>minor adjustments.
>
>Even without the internet to egg each other on, the cry went up -
>this will ruin pattern, it won't work, it will obsolete my equipment,
>engines will burn up with mufflers and big props, etc, etc.
>Many did quit.
>
>A transition concept for AMA rules evolved: Leave the existing
>non- turnaround schedules in place. Add F3A, and a new
>AMA class, "Expert Turnaround". It was similiar to todays
>Intermediate in difficulty. Transition to flying in the box
>required revised pilot skills, and considerable modifcation to
>pattern birds. That was an interesting era, as seriously new
>designs and flying styles were tried. To encourage pilots to try
>the new turnaround concept, there was no forced advancement
>into Expert Turnaround, or into F3A. And for those that flew
>them, they could return to a regular AMA class.
>
>Over the years, the center maneuver AMA classes evolved to
>Turnaround style, but with a few box exits for a pilot breather,
>and free re-position for the next series of maneuvers in the box.
>Expert Turnaround melted into the regular AMA class structure.
>F3A remained as an international class, and without
>mandatory advancement from AMA Masters.
>
>Ron Lockhart
>----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeff Hughes
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 12:53 AM
> Subject: Re: AMA rules-what are we doing?
>
>
> I guess I'm just missing the point. To some, schedule and practice in intermediate is difficult, but it is not a destination class. If we fly fai at the nats as the top class, logic says that should be the only destination class, not masters. Must be some history here i'm missing.
>
> It really doesn't matter to me, cause I'm a long way from there, just curious is all.
> Jeff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Del Rykert
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 7:56 PM
> Subject: Re: AMA rules-what are we doing?
>
>
> For one because of the schedule and practice requirements. I have never seen stats on how many sponsored pilots fly in which classes. My guess is none in Sportsman or intermediate and maybe a couple in advanced. Rest hang out in Masters/FAI... Not all are born with a silver spoon in their pocket or have the type of job that allows the large chunk of time to practice and hone the skills for FAI. This assumes you are trying to be competitive and not just hanging out.
>
> Del K. Rykert
> AMA - 8928
> NSRCA - 473
> Kb2joi - General
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeff Hughes
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 7:19 PM
> Subject: Re: AMA rules-what are we doing?
>
>
> FAI, why woudn't our top class be flying the international pattern?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 4:10 PM
> Subject: Re: AMA rules-what are we doing?
>
>
> In a message dated 11/14/2002 12:31:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, jhughes at hsonline.net writes:
>
>
> Subj: Re: AMA rules-what are we doing?
> Date: 11/14/2002 12:31:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
> From: jhughes at hsonline.net
> Reply-to: discussion at nsrca.org
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Sent from the Internet
>
>
>
> This brings up a good point. Why is Master's considered a destination
> class? Why shouldn't we point out of Masters just like you do on the
> way up?
>
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
> and go where?? What would be the point?
>
> MattK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20021117/4c2d8051/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list